Polyethylene terephthalate and its copolyesters (hereinafter referred to collectively as “PET”) are widely used to make containers for carbonated soft drinks, juice, water, and the like due to their excellent combination of clarity, mechanical, and gas barrier properties. In spite of these desirable characteristics, insufficient gas barrier of PET to oxygen and carbon dioxide limits application of PET for smaller sized packages, as well as for packaging oxygen sensitive products, such as beer, juice, and tea products. A widely expressed need exists in the packaging industry to further improve the gas barrier properties of PET.
The relatively high permeability of PET to carbon dioxide limits the use of smaller PET containers for packaging carbonated soft drinks. The permeation rate of carbon dioxide through PET containers is in the range of 3 to 14 cc's per day or 1.5 to 2 percent per week loss rate at room temperature depending on the size of the container. A smaller container has a larger surface area to volume ratio resulting in a higher relative loss rate. For this reason, PET containers are currently used only as larger containers for packaging carbonated soft drinks, while metal cans and glass containers are the choice for smaller carbonated soft drink containers.
The amount of carbon dioxide remaining in a packaged carbonated soft drink determines its shelf life. Normally, carbonated soft drink containers are filled with approximately four volumes of carbon dioxide per volume of water. It is generally accepted that a packaged carbonated soft drink reaches the end of its shelf life when 17.5 percent of the carbon dioxide in the container is lost due to permeation of the carbon dioxide through the container side wall and closure. The permeability of PET to carbon dioxide therefore determines the shelf life of the packaged carbonated beverage and thus, the suitability of PET as a packaging material.
Numerous technologies have been developed or are being developed to enhance the barrier of PET to small gas molecules. For example, external or internal coatings for enhancing the gas barrier of PET containers have been developed. The coating layer is normally a very high barrier layer, either inorganic or organic, and slows down the diffusion of gases. Implementation of this technology, however, requires coating equipment not normally utilized in the manufacture of packaged beverages and therefore requires substantial capital investment, increased energy usage, and increased floor space. In many beverage packaging plants that are already crowded, the additional space is not an option.
Multi-layered containers have also been developed with a high barrier layer sandwiched between two or more PET layers. Implementation of this technology also requires substantial capital investment and delamination of the container layers impacts appearance, barrier, and mechanical performance of the containers.
A barrier additive for the PET or a polymer with inherent barrier properties would be preferred solutions. Neither such solution requires additional capital investment, and therefore, does not have the limitations inherent with other technologies. A barrier additive can also be added during the injection molding process which gives more flexibility for downstream operations.
L. M. Robeson and J. A. Faucher disclose in J. Polymer Science, Part B 7, 35-40 (1969) that certain additives can be incorporated into polymers to increase their modulus and gas barrier properties through an antiplasticization mechanism. This article discloses utilizing additives with polycarbonate, polyvinyl chloride, polyphenylene oxide, and polythyelene oxide.
In WO 01/12521, Plotzker et al. propose the use of additives selected from 4-hydroxybenzoates and related molecules to increase the gas barrier properties of PET. This published patent application discloses barrier additives of the following structure:
HO-AR-COOR, HO-AR-COOR COO-AR-OH, HO-AR-CONHR, HO-AR-CO—NHR3-COO-AR-OH, HO-AR-CONHR2NHCO-AR-OH
In the foregoing structure, AR is selected from the group consisting of substituted or unsubstituted phenylene or naphthalene. And R1, R2, and R3 are selected from the group consisting from C1 to C6 alkyl groups, a phenyl group, and a naphthyl group.
The foregoing additives described in the art provide only moderate improvement in PET barrier, less than 2.1 times (X) for oxygen barrier for the best examples with a 5 weight percent loading level. At this loading level, however, PET experiences substantial degradation and a significant drop in intrinsic viscosity (IV). Although lowering the level of additive reduces the degradation of PET, it also reduces the barrier improvement factor, so much so that no real benefit exists in using these additives in packaging carbonated soft drinks or oxygen sensitive food. Part of the IV loss is due to the addition of the small molecular additive. Additional IV loss results when additives contain functional groups capable of reacting with PET and causing the break down of the molecular weight. Additives with reactive functional groups usually are more soluble in PET and thus do not impart haziness in the bottle. PET with a significantly lower IV cannot be used in blow molding containers, such as beverage containers. Furthermore, lower IV PET makes containers with poor mechanical performance, such as creep, drop impact, and the like, Still further, PET containers made from lower IV PET have poor stress cracking resistance, which is undesirable in container applications.
PET has been modified or blended with other components to enhance the gas barrier of the PET. Examples include polyethylene naphthalate (PEN)/PET copolymers or blends, isophthalate (IPA) modified PET, PET blended with polyethylene isophthalate (PEI) or a polyamide, such as nylon, and PET modified with resorcinol based diols. For a PET copolymer to achieve moderate barrier enhancement of 2× or higher, the modification is normally more than 10 to 20 weight or mole percent of the total co-monomers. When PET is modified to such a high level, the stretching characteristics of the PET are changed dramatically such that the normal PET container preform design could not be used in the manufacture of containers. Using these PET copolymers to mold conventional PET container preforms results in preforms that can not be fully stretched and the ultimate containers are very difficult, if not impossible, to make. Even if such a container can be made, it does not show improved barrier performance and shows deteriorated physical performance such that it can not be used to package carbonated soft drinks. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,888,598 and 6,150,450 disclose redesigned PET container preforms with thicker side walls to compensate for the increased stretch ratio. This thicker preform, however, requires new molds which require additional capital investment. The thicker preform is also made at a lower rate of productivity because it takes longer to cool and heat the thicker wall preform. Furthermore, PET blends with polyamide such as nylon developed yellowness and haze and are not clear like conventional PET.
Thus, there is a need in the art to enhance the barrier performance of PET for use in applications that will require enhanced barrier, such as in the packaging of carbonated beverages and oxygen sensitive beverages and foods, in a manner that does not cause substantial degradation of the PET, does not substantially impact the stretch ratio of the PET, and does not negatively impact the clarity of the PET.